That is not the summary of this article (though I have criticisms of it as well). Both the intensive conversion of natural habitat and free-ranging cat predation on small animals are directly linked to human behaviors. Humans choose to let pet cats outdoors or choose to abandon them despite the fact that there are clear expectations in regards to what cats prey upon. These expectations are explicitly related to wildcat behavioral ecology and the process of domestication, which are outright ignored. Sure, habitat fragmentation is important but the choices humans make in light of that observation only exacerbate the problem (i.e., I am going to let my pet cat roam outside).

The article directly links the inability of the small animal populations to recover or withstand the predation. That's not because of cats. That's because of habitat loss. Humans are at fault, yes. Forcing our pets to live indoors, which had downsides for the pets and owners, doesn't correct the human source of the issue.

Why should small animal populations have to withstand predation from domestic cats in the first place (even if there was no habitat loss)? In North America, some scholars would go so far as to call domestic cats invasive species.

Your point on habitat loss is well taken in conjunction with the fact that domestic cats are efficient predators. Cats are pets. Human populations, which are increasingly urbanized and increasing in numbers, now harness the predatory behavior of cats into concentrated geographic areas. It is foolish to not consider this as a problem. Habitat fragmentation is without a doubt more proximate to the source of many environmental issues. However, what do you think is more controllable: human need for space in the face of an exponentially increasing population or human choice to let a cat outside? Just because one problem is worse doesn't make another one okay.

That's my problem. I go so infrequently. I pretty much wait until my hair is insane until I get it cut. I can't keep track of my own hair. Let alone the people cutting it. I just want somewhere to go where I can rely on a solid haircut. I've got crazy curly hair too, so that doesn't help.

In one of these threads a while back, someone posted a story about how his dad/uncle/relation was visiting the grand canyon with friends. They were mucking about taking photos, but it was only when they got home to develop them they saw a creepy dude in the bushes watching them - they swear he wasn't there at the time.

From OP: "He said he and his two friends were in that spot for about 15 minutes. My Uncle and his friends claimed that they did not know this man, that they were the only ones in the spot, and the Grand Canyon was vacant of tourists at this time of year."

You are missing the point. Like you said, archaeologists study material culture. Animals constitute a type of material (such that there is an entire subdiscipline in archaeology dedicated to it). Some are even kind enough to leave behind hard parts. The order artiodactyla has been widely exploited by humans through time. Therefore, this might have been one of the best subreddits to go to for an ID.

The skeletal element that you have here is most definitely an atlas. However, it is not an atlas of a proboscidean (such as a mastodon or a mammoth). This is an atlas of a rather large ungulate, and as you have denoted in your imgur images an artiodactyl. But, I wouldn't be so quick to call this a bison. There is considerable overlap in the post-cranial skeletal elements of bovids. Particularly between Bos and Bison. Whole books are dedicated to the matter (see, for example, Cumbaa and Balkwill 1992). Where is your geographical location and in what context in the river did you find it? For example, did you have to dig a little for it? Or was it just kind of on the top? Though it is pretty big (approx. 2.5 inches larger than a Bos taurus atlas I just measured). But do not forget to take into account intrataxonomic variation. That is, skeletal differences between males and females and also differences in age. Best bet for an ID = Bos/Bison

I'm taking a principles of evolution class and we've been using this one: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/02/09/science/20090209-darwin-evolution-documents.html?ref=science. You can download the pdf for free. I think it might technically be the second edition. However, it is free! And all the postulates are preserved in all their glory. We're also using Carl Zimmer's new book Evolution: Making Sense of Life. It is very good. If you're looking for a well rounded view on modern evolutionary theory I'd save up for Zimmer's book and supplement it with the free On the Origin of Species.

I don't agree, whatsoever, that cultural anthropology should be ousted out of "the academy." Thinking about people should be a good thing! But, I do agree with this guy on some accounts. Cultural anthropology in many respects, I believe, is in a fit with itself. People who want to seek a more empirical avenue in their research are deemed too "deterministic." Post-modernism is a wonderful but simultaneously problematic lens. I believe that the modern cultural anthropology largely renders the four field approach useless. In some universities archaeology and physical anthropology atrophy in its wake; they ask different questions with quite different sets of data that require different analyses. Therefore, they come to different conclusions. I kind of think the opposite and yet the same as this guy. I think cultural anthropology should stay where it is and the other fields should disperse elsewhere, if the department is so inclined as to do so. Physical anthropology to biological sciences. Archaeology to wherever the hell they will be taken in. I speak from an archaeological bias. There are so many flavors to these four fields and I think we are fooling ourselves if we think we are achieving the same goals in all instances.

I'd first start reading on the evolution of altruism in primates. That's a cool topic and it will make you define "charity" or "altruistic behavior." Go to scholar.google.com and start reading and mining through references cited sections. What kind of specific questions are you interested in?

My buddy tried to buy her a shot, but she refused. He was broken hearted. She talked to him about how crazy she thinks all of the attention she gets is. He came back to the table where I was and told me she was there. I couldn't pass up the opportunity to get a picture. So, basically all I said was "can I get a picture?" I think it was her birthday and I didn't really want to bug her. However, she wasn't annoyed or anything. She was really nice.

When I was a junior in high school I was dating a girl my father didn't care for too much. He suspected I was giving her rides to school in the morning, which I wasn't. One morning I got into a fender bender while in the line of cars going into my school. The person who's bumper I scratched had a passenger. When our parents talked the other parent said that neither the driver nor the passenger were hurt. My dad automatically assumed I had the passenger. He made me take the front seat out of my car, and drive around without it for months. Mind you there was still a backseat. I am a pretty tall guy. Probably a week later I lost my virginity very comfortably in the back seat of that piece of shit Dodge Shadow.

I've processed one of these guys for an osteological comparative collection. It was an awful experience. Grad student brought it in to process. It was road kill and far from fresh. He insisted that he wanted to process it. I was an accomplice to dismembering it. I've never smelled such smells. The symptoms of leprosy will surface in my mid 50's. I'm sure of it.

Weird. I'm sitting in one of the chemistry labs at UNT waiting for samples to get done. I didn't realize this from UNT until after I watched the video. Mind blown. Definitely did justice to one of my favorite Coheed songs. Good job.